Discussions

PrismTech has announced OpenFusion Real Time for Java, a CORBA-compliant Object Request Broker for the JSR 1, the Real-Time Specification for Java.

Real-time systems are those which must produce correct responses within a definite time limit. Changes in the scale, complexity and scope of real-time systems are forcing the real-time community to re-think the way in which it develops software. These changing requirements may make it necessary for the real-time community to adopt real-time platforms that provide higher-level abstractions, as has happened for business application developers thanks to the J2EE platform.

The Real-Time Specification for Java extends the benefits of the Java programming language to the real-time community, creating an architecture in which hard real-time (HRT), soft-real-time (SRT), and non-real-time (NRT) processes could coexist and share data.

While there isn't yet a real time for J2EE, the OMG's CORBA specification has been extended via the Real-time CORBA Specification. The standard addresses the issues of end-to-end predictability across CORBA systems and provides a solution in terms of priority control, synchronization and resource control.

OpenFusion RT for Java is PrismTech's new real-time CORBA-compliant ORB for the RTSJ. Amongst the key features of OpenFusion RT for Java are:

- RT CORBA v1.1 support on a RTSJ compliant JVM with low jitter comparable to that obtained with C or C++ applications- Java Language bindings based on the OMG’s IDL to Java Language Mapping specification- Full POA implementation- Multithreaded support,- Comprehensive Portable Interceptor support,- Support for ValueTypes,- Request Timeouts from the CORBA Messaging specification

To see how many people show interest in this thread. :)Corba has been a abandoned territory for a long time and only a few have gone into it.....

I don't think it's abandonded, but the concept of real time middleware is pretty cool. Also, thread activity is not always an indicator of interest, but unfortunately only us editors have access to that. I'll update this link next week with a note on how viewed it is relative to other threads, for interests sake. :)

Also, thread activity is not always an indicator of interest, [snip]Yes, unfortunately it's the provocative headlines that draw the crowds, such recent ones with headlines as "SOAP is DEAD!" or "Microsoft Abandons .NET". Meanwhile the rest of us quietly get our work done with tools like omniORB and other CORBA implementations. Further, product announcements are not always big topics, however I would say this one definitely merits interest.

Corba has been a abandoned territory for a long time and only a few have gone into it.

Dearest ignorant,

In the future you might want to refrain from sprouting such incredibly uninformed comments because it makes you look like a wimp that's only been doing shitty ten page JSP webapps in his basement, calls himself a freelancer and likes to feel the hair grow on his chest.No offence mate.I've said this before here on TSS, but I'm a subscriber to the OmniORB ML and read the messages regularly. OmniORB is an open source ORB, by the way, C++ and Python, not exactly what you'd call hyped or mainstream. BUT the names I've picked on the list (from email addresses of subscribers) make for an impressive name-dropping just off the top of my head: Verisign, Quark, RJ Reynolds Tobacco, Kodak and many others. Each time I see one of these it really makes me go wow.

Corba is simply a quietly well working technologie. Nobody is talking about or hyping parser technologie either, but that doesn't mean parsers are abandoned territory.But of course it is a lot cooler to talk about the latest cool XSLT transformation than to talk about grammars.

Ever opened a Gnumeric document in Nautilus? It opens in-place, like an Excel sheet within word. But in Gnome it's not COM, it's Bonobo which uses Corba below the hood.[snip]

Very cool. I'd heard of both Bonobo, and ORBit, but I didn't realize the GNOME folks had written this CORBA implementation from scratch because of various difficulties with other ORBs (no doubt much improved by now). In fact I read KDE also is revisiting the idea of using CORBA because of limitations of KParts, their from scratch technology which is fairly similar to Microsoft's COM.

KParts is KDE component model as Bonobo is in GNOME. In this case CORBA is just way how to expose component for remote access. As I know in KParts to expose component remotely they have their own house cooked RPC stuff. In this case CORBA sounds like a good alternative :) or WS !!! lol

Yeah, I know that. I've never really understood the need to reinvent the wheel with DCOP, when IIOP was already there, standard and would have allowed for easier kde-gnome communication. A bit on the proud side methinks. I was curious about the suggestion that KDE are thinking about switching/adding corba to their stack - google came up pretty much empty on that, just arrogant articles showing samples with kparts and concluding this is way ahead of gnome. Blah.

I don't think they had difficulties with other orbs. Main reason why Orbit was developed by readhat is that it's written in C language and has C bindings. At that time (1996-1997) C++ wasn't an option for GNOME folks, because C++ compilers on variuos platforms sucked in terms of compatibility with ISO standart.

To re-iterate what others have said. True CORBA is no longer hyped like some newer flavor of the month technologies. But it is a mature technology being extensively used for mission and business critical applications in sectors such as Telco and Defense and has proven itself in applications ranging from C4I through to embedded real-time.

For example CORBA forms a key component of the Joint Tactical Radio Systems (JTRS) Software Communications Architecture (SCA). JTRS is a multi-billion dollar US Department of Defense project for a new generation of software programmable radios which will provide reliable multichannel voice, data, imagery, and video communications - and eliminate communications problems caused by "stovepipe" legacy systems.http://jtrs.army.mil/

CORBA isn't dead -- lack of hype makes it easy to come to the conclusion. For the most part its a mature technology that is seeing slowdown in innovations partly because it has already carved a niche for itself in high performance distributed computing platforms. In fact, offshoots of CORBA have been getting a much wider audience. Consider ICE: http://www.zeroc.comSome of the best brains in CORBA got together to build ICE. The result is a much leaner, more efficient middleware learning from all the past mistakes of CORBA. The comparison with CORBA is pretty revealing: http://www.zeroc.com/iceVsCorba.html

CORBA isn't dead -- lack of hype makes it easy to come to the conclusion. For the most part its a mature technology that is seeing slowdown in innovations partly because it has already carved a niche for itself in high performance distributed computing platforms.

Well I don't "like" it is a big word... I have no problems with SOAP, it's OK for many (simple) things.My only point is : "don't expect to use it for other things it was originally designed for (XML data exchange, not real OO middleware)".

The fact it's a "standard" is always a good thing to me, whatever the area of interest...Industry is based on standards. IT should not be an exception IMHO.

I would have more problems with the WSs and all the things they try to do there, since they *are* already defined and working (most of it) in CORBA. This is useless : why not investing all this time & resources in real "middleware that works" ? I mean, WSs tend more and more to get into the middleware arena and *that* is silly IMHO.It's not a question about standards, but about technlology. WSs look more and more like a pale CORBA copy that's badly designed from the beginning...

So, standard or not, WSs has no foundation so IMHO we should not even investigate. This is technical, not related to stardards...The future is built on past achievements. WSs make the middleware arena go back to prehistoric ages whereas CORBA should have allowed real OO interop and distribution. I can't understand we missed so much clever engineers so that the WSs never appeared (it only deserves commercial interests, and goes against scientifical progress, that's not my philosophy, that's a personnal point of view).

Last but not least, SOAP and WSs in general (like .NET) are more or less fake standards to me. I only trust in open consortiums, and obviously the WSs stuff is over sponsored and driven by big players only.

Why isn't M$ an OMG member ?:-)

So, not only the technology is fake, but they still try to put the mess in standardization processes.

Another example : I can't believe how Java lovers can put the blame on the JCP ? Gee, this is the only difference between Sun and M$ actually.

Real solutions often come from open consortiums and collaborative work. Private, commercially oriented companies have never aimed at making the world better... only make money.

When it comes to M$, IBM or Sun and the big players in any other domains (not only IT), well, I have another vision of what's "insulting"...

Think a moment about generic medicine. I personnally find "insulting" the way big labs let Africa die because of the patents on medics...

Want an IT example (which may be easier to understand) ? Think about software patents for a second. They clearly aim at making money, not making progress. Who's owning most of them ???? Do you think they are public domain ??? Do you realize this kills personnal innovativity ? Do you realize this is the beginning of the end for research and development ?

Just open your eyes, stop coding 5 minutes : the world's dying because of that liberal economics, for the benefit of a very few. M$, sun, IBM and others have a very self explanatory business plan... where there's no socio-economical point at all !!!! They only thing they are able to do is... fire people off even where they have "insulting" incomes just because the stocks aren't good !

Want my opinion ? They way you forget all this is to me far more arrogant, insulting and cynical than my personal opinion about private companies (which is not bad, only objective). Your "memory"'s apparently sadly limited to the J2EE clusters world mate :-/

But still you are right, at least a bit : I should not put everybody in the same bag, that's damn true.

Think a moment about generic medicine. I personnally find "insulting" the way big labs let Africa die because of the patents on medics...

This is a conversation that will not be settled by posting some whiny quip on TSS. Those medicines would not exist in the first place if it were not for patents.

As an exercise for the reader, ask yourself why India has a huge generics drug industry for copying western drugs (which in India is "legal" since India does not recognize IP on medicines), and yet that same industry hasn't invented a cure for malaria (Plasmodium falciparum) which kills about 15x more people in the world than AIDS, including a significant number of Indians. Unless you can disagree with my statistics, it certainly sounds like patents on medicines have actually helped to treat or cure a lot of diseases (those diseases which exist in the countries that allow patents on medicines), while a lack of patents on medicine in India arguably consigns about 3 million people a year to needless death by malaria.

Want an IT example (which may be easier to understand) ? Think about software patents for a second. They clearly aim at making money, not making progress.

I loathe the _abuse_ of patents as much as anyone, but the patent system itself is responsible for much of the advancement in science and technology in the world.

If you want to make fun of patents, just go post a story on the swinging patent on Slashdot -- I haven't seen it show up as a story on the front page there for at least a week ;-)

They way you forget all this is to me far more arrogant, insulting and cynical than my personal opinion about private companies (which is not bad, only objective).

Such irony, considering that you seem to have enough money for a computer and enough time to post on the Internet.

This general tendency of the very-fortunate to gnaw off their own arms amazes me. I would like to better understand the causes of these nihilistic tendencies. Honestly, claims such as yours shock and scare me, that they would be made at all.

This is a conversation that will not be settled by posting some whiny quip on TSS.

Fully agreed.

Those medicines would not exist in the first place if it were not for patents. As an exercise for the reader, ask yourself why India...

Definitly lost memory in a cluster folk. Innovation and research has been there since the very first ages of humans... it's in our nature. It's called "curiosity".Do you think Galilee or Pythagore were doing research to increase sales ?On the other hand, we (humans) also have the envy to dominate, the attraction for power...

You are reasoning by examples where there's nothing but an obvious fact. I don't know why you take it so personnal...

Such irony, considering that you seem to have enough money for a computer and enough time to post on the Internet.

So according to you once you eat everyday, you don't need to look the world around any more ? This comment is pretty easy man...

This general tendency of the very-fortunate to gnaw off their own arms amazes me. I would like to better understand the causes of these nihilistic tendencies. Honestly, claims such as yours shock and scare me, that they would be made at all.

*Shocks* you ??!! Well I must admit I can't understand you either man. I know plenty of people who trust in public research, and I know plenty of people who run business and make it for money, not for social progress (I personnally do both btw if you want to know, and never claimed my personnal business was gonna help anybody else than me and my clients !).You know, that's why we have universities, public research labs... just to be able to do research without anything imposed by the private companies (and this tends do disappear more and more believe me or not), because this would *not* be research any more...

Anyway I won't go into further philosophical considerations here, as you said it's not the appropriate place.

Don't hesitate to email me (remi "at" rvkb.com) if you want to understand better what you call my "nihilistic tendency" (trusting in research is being "nihilistic" now... man I must have problems to read I think it's late the wine's good...).

I think it's the cynicism that scares me. I see it all over, including at times in myself, and it is a terrible indictment.

On the other hand, what bothered me about your original post was the assumption that companies (and by extension their workers) do not have some higher goals in mind than profit. I am constantly surprised by the number of people I meet that have more to their dreams and more that drives them than simple selfishness. Our industry in particular exhibits a great amount of idealism.

Not to say that you're absolutely wrong, rather that you are not seeing some very encouraging trends.

I think it's the cynicism that scares me. I see it all over, including at times in myself, and it is a terrible indictment.

I have a big mouth, I use it to spread my views, and you can't imagine what's the price for that (btw you also seem to have a big mouth - with no aggressivity and all my respect of course).But that's not what I'd call "cynism" actually. "Pessimism" (not sure this word exist in english sorry) would be better I think. And yes, honestly I don't have a very good feeling with the world we live in, at least I don't expect big private companies to make it better...

On the other hand, what bothered me

BTW, what bothered me was your "rudeness" : we could have talked like civilized humans (like we start doing now) from the beginning...

about your original post was the assumption that companies (and by extension their workers) do not have some higher goals in mind than profit.

Well, how many would be actually working if they were paid (let's say if they could satisfy their needs) anyway ?:-)How many workers *really* enjoy their daily work ?But once again you are right : exceptions exist. I guess we're some man, we both look to like our job...

On the other hand, public research is nothing but pure curiosity. Researchers are often living with almost nothing, the simple fact of doing an interesting stuff is enough to them...

I am constantly surprised by the number of people I meet that have more to their dreams and more that drives them than simple selfishness.

Well, of course, that must be also because the people you meet is living in the same world than you (it's not an insult or a critic just an assumption : it's the case for me in general too)... We often stay with people who come from the same 'social' environment than ourselves.But I was talking about general principles.I don't think my ancestors loved their work in the coal mine... I don't think they did it for anything else than the money they had at the end of the week. I don't even think the mine's owner was an idealistic guy, seeing the way employees were treated...

We don't all have fantastic jobs. I would even say it's a rare privilege IMHO.

Our industry in particular exhibits a great amount of idealism.

As well as awful things behind the scenes, and this is bound to commercial factors. Business == competition. Some players don't play the game, and abuse of this system. This is human too...M$'s mutliple assignments to court are the best example once again, like it or not *they* clearly demonstrated they were ready to kill other companies (with very good ideas indeed !) just to get their business run better.The amount of patents that are the property of IT's big companies is amazing... they can kill my business (your too mate I think) tomorrow if they want and make me unemployed, and go for a job that's far less interesting than the one I have, by necessity.

Not to say that you're absolutely wrong,

Thanks for recognizing it (at least a bit) :-P

rather that you are not seeing some very encouraging trends.

I could send you back this argument mate :-)

Anyway the world's not 100% white or 100% black, I guess we both are "cynical" in our way of thinking.I strongly trust in public research and open standards - this was my original point - for our future, and maybe not enough in private companies.On the other hand, you seem to have faith in private companies for making the world progress (and I must admit you are right in some way : the liberal market's competition probably helped a lot in pushing (applied) research).

Who's the most cynical of us then ? :-)

Anyway, once again this is an endless debate and we're really fully out of scope now... I may have remarks for this "wasted space" of for the "idiotic M$ thing" if I continue (surprising that no parasites came to pollute this thread with silly comments btw !!!), so this will be my last post, I swear it :-)

But you know what, as a conclusion, I'd say that I'm pretty happy we finally find a way to understand each other !At least, you managed to reduce my "pessimistic" tendencies a little bit : we can talk, even if we don't agree, that's far better than nothing (or even 'aggressive' posts) !

So, thank you for this moment.

Have fun,

Remi

PS :

sometimes it's amazing to me that a lot of that GNU software even compiles. It's built like crap in general, with relatively few exceptions to that rule. (And it continues to amaze me how well it seems to work, despite its general crappiness.

And yes, honestly I don't have a very good feeling with the world we live in, at least I don't expect big private companies to make it better...

No, I don't expect big companies to have the welfare of the world as their primary goal. On the other hand, the taxes and donations collected from those companies and their employees does fund our public research efforts, our academic institutions, etc. Even the "M$" example you refer to has Bill Gates personally donating $168 million to curing malaria.

Well, how many would be actually working if they were paid (let's say if they could satisfy their needs) anyway ?:-)How many workers *really* enjoy their daily work ?But once again you are right : exceptions exist. I guess we're some man, we both look to like our job... On the other hand, public research is nothing but pure curiosity. Researchers are often living with almost nothing, the simple fact of doing an interesting stuff is enough to them...

Still, except for a few "lucky" countries that pump black gold out of the ground, the ability to have healthy public institutions (e.g. publicly funded research) rests on the health of the private sector. The two are symbiotic, as private companies do not tend to flourish without public infrastructure (including supporting law) that provides a healthy ecosystem for capital flows, private property, etc.

I don't think my ancestors loved their work in the coal mine... I don't think they did it for anything else than the money they had at the end of the week.

And that is one of the reasons why I so fundamentally believe in the importance of the success of our industry.

I strongly trust in public research and open standards - this was my original point - for our future, and maybe not enough in private companies.On the other hand, you seem to have faith in private companies for making the world progress (and I must admit you are right in some way : the liberal market's competition probably helped a lot in pushing (applied) research).Who's the most cynical of us then ? :-)

In a way I am more the cynic then, because I do not "trust" companies per se, but rather see them as an essential cog in the machine of progress. Likewise I do not necessarily "trust" public research, but rather see it as an essential piece of the puzzle too. Ours is not a terribly efficient system, any way you look at it. However, it does seem to beat all of the alternatives. In the last 150 years, we've managed to get the kids out of the coal mines, reduce the typical work week by a significant amount, increase the typical amount of discretionary income, extend life expectancies, etc.

sometimes it's amazing to me that a lot of that GNU software even compiles. It's built like crap in general, with relatively few exceptions to that rule. (And it continues to amaze me how well it seems to work, despite its general crappiness.

Touche. However, my opinion is formed from wading through reams and reams of it, trying to fix specific annoying bugs that could never have existed in well-written source code. When I say "I'm surprised it compiles," it's because I've had to change it and compile it ;-) .. and when I say that it amazes me how well it seems to work, that is because once you get it built and configured well, a lot of that "questionable source code" seems to make software that is resilient.

No, I don't expect big companies to have the welfare of the world as their primary goal.

Alleluia :-)

On the other hand, the taxes and donations collected from those companies and their employees does fund our public research efforts, our academic institutions, etc.

True. But once again they don't do it in an idealistic way... just because they *must* do it.How many companies would rather keep the money as pure benefit for the shareholders instead of giving it to public research etc ?How many people would not pay their taxes if it wasn't mandatory ???

Even the "M$" example you refer to has Bill Gates personally donating $168 million to curing malaria.

Well, it's just like me giving 1cent, and that's a good advertisement for him... This way geeks can't insult him any more, he's (at least he's got the appearance of) a generous man :-)And maybe he even does this seriously with real ideas behind, I don't know hime personnally, I can't judge him... BTW, M$ is just an abreviation for Microsoft (it was fashion a few years ago - like CORBA btw, a bit more in the scope - but now you have to write it <MS/> I guess, that's more trendy). I never talked about Bill Gates in particular...

Moreover this is not very consistent. Destroy the others' businesses (but don't say it, huuu, it's baaaad for sales !) on one side, and give money to cure diseases on the other...Well, we've seen people more attached to their opinions IMHO... I would rather trust Nelson Mandela for example...

The two are symbiotic,

So how can you explain that the more liberal is the economy, the more research dies ?I mean (at least in France), we never had so few credits for R&D than now. Teachers and researchers missing in the univesities, cuts in public fundings... I live this everyday mate this ain't fake !!! They even threat of linking public R&D fundings to *valueable* results !!!! Nonsense when you know the definition of what fundamental research is...

If the two are symbiotic, one is more than the other :-))))

as private companies do not tend to flourish without public infrastructure (including supporting law) that provides a healthy ecosystem for capital flows, private property, etc.

Healthy ? Do you think the Internet bubble was a good example of a "healthy ecosystem for capital flows" ? What's your opinion about cases like Enron ???

Healthy... Definitly not IMHO ! I would qualify it of "vicious" instead !!!

And that is one of the reasons why I so fundamentally believe in the importance of the success of our industry.

Our industry is minority mate, please do not forget it. You'll always need more people for real production and such tasks than in the service industry.

In a way I am more the cynic then, because I do not "trust" companies per se, but rather see them as an essential cog in the machine of progress.

Companies are essential, I fully agree with you there. But the "system" they evolve in definitly not deserve progress IMHO...

Likewise I do not necessarily "trust" public research,

... and you're right in some way. I see *lots* of examples where public funding is spent for nothing believe me... and this *pisses me off* litterally, even maybe more than a private companies than announces huge incomes and fires off workers by thousands at the same time.Nothing's perfect, of course, but don't forget everything public research brought to your everyday life.We should thank these guys (Pasteur, Pythagore, Euclide, etc.) every morning... Would you thank, ok let's say Bill Gates, every morning ? I woudn't !!!

but rather see it as an essential piece of the puzzle too. Ours is not a terribly efficient system, any way you look at it.

So you are a pessimistic too ?? At least you managed to hide it for a few posts... But anyway the club accepts "repressed" pessimistics too... warm welcome !;-P

However, it does seem to beat all of the alternatives.

However, one thing is sure : I don't have any consistent alternative to propose !!!!! Everytime you try thinking about it you realize how much designing an idealistic society if far harder than designing a piece of software !!

In the last 150 years, we've managed to get the kids out of the coal mines, reduce the typical work week by a significant amount, increase the typical amount of discretionary income, extend life expectancies, etc.

Erf, this is subjective. I wasn't there 150 years ago, I don't know which was the quality of life then... But I assume some have moved to non-sense (e.g. primitive societies that lived in peace and were not able to manage the occidental way of life - look at Indians and Inuits that became alcoholics), and others have a better life now (me vs. my ancestors)...This can be discussed too IMHO...

When it comes to GNU software, I probably have seen far less of it than you, so I won't pronounce on that. But I use it everyday, and yes, amazingly or not, it works, at least what I use is often as good as commercial equivalents, from an end-user perspective... maybe it misses the "nice packaging" but I don't trust a brochure anyway so...

Have fun,

Remi - I sweared it would be the last... posting's like drinking beer at the pub : you know when you enter, you don't have a clue of how and when it will end !!! I swear won't swear any more !!!

TechTarget provides technology professionals with the information they need to perform their jobs - from developing strategy, to making cost-effective purchase decisions and managing their organizations technology projects - with its network of technology-specific websites, events and online magazines.